4 ms·
That sounds like an uncharitable interpretation of what HAF said, but I can't verify because they never link to the source statement and the article she points
by naravara 6y ago
That sounds like an uncharitable interpretation of what HAF said, but I can't verify because they never link to the source statement and the article she points at is behind a paywall.
Come to think of it this "Attribute quotes to people and then say 'read the (paywalled) article' when someone asks for context" strategy seems like a pretty good way to spread misinformation.
Edit: Okay did some googling and found the source statement. That tweet is definitely a very bad faith misreading of HAF's statement which says:
> In its complaint, California argues that Cisco failed to
address discrimination against one of its engineers by co-workers on the basis of his presumed caste. California goes on to state that caste is “a strict Hindu social and
religious hierarchy” and therefore an integral part of
Hindu teachings and practices. Framing its argument in this way, California is attempting to do what the Constitution clearly says it cannot, HAF
said: defining Hindu religious doctrine for Hindus.
In other words, HAF isn't saying discrimination is a Hindu right. They're saying it's inappropriate for US Courts to define what constitutes "Hindu belief systems." This sounds appropriate since setting precedent in a court that defines anyone who professes belief in Hinduism as being casteist a priori would basically be opening the door to religious discrimination.
- iamshs 6y agoHAF is saying exactly that. The case wants to make sure caste discrimination gets explicitly mentioned, but HAF is bringing in Hinduism angle and saying don't define Hinduism for us. You see the obfuscation here, they are doing? They are trying to defend casteism in a round about way. HAF is founded by Upper Caste Hindus hence they are invested in this matter to make sure the case does not set a precedent for them.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y agoI see, thanks for digging. This would be like a court saying "violent conquest, and religious discrimination in the tax system, are inherent parts of Islam enshrined in the Quran", or "theocratic Zionism and the killing of gentiles are core parts of Judaism that are sanctioned in the Torah". In both cases, with a fundamentalist reading, you'd be right, but it's really up to Muslims and to Jews to interpret their own religions (and to interpret their way away from bad parts of their texts), not for the legal system to do. And it's kind of anti-Hindu to choose the most unsympathetic (to an American) reading of Hinduism to be the "official" one. It would be like saying that right-wing "Christian nationalism" is the "true" Christianity. The only people who would agree would be people outside Christianity who hate it, and the right wingers themselves. And in the case of "Hinduism" this is extra complicated, because there is no central authority, and barely even a core "religion" in the manner of monotheisms. "Hinduism" barely exists (some people say it's just a word invented by the Britishers); it's a loose confederation of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc; it's amorphous. It's hard to say what is and isn't a "core belief". Whenever you try to grasp it, it will slip out of your hand.